Back
High Court Of Delhi
SAFARI AIRWAYS - Appellant
Versus
ESTATE OFFICER - Respondent
Decided On : 12/14/1982
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 - SECTION 4(1) - NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE - VALIDITY - DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL ON WHICH OPINION FORMED - NOT NECESSARY - OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST OPINION IN INQUIRY - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY OF APPEAL - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Safari Airways, the petitioner, held a license to occupy a plot of land at Delhi Airport for one year, expiring on 31.10.1972. No written license was executed thereafter. On 19.03.1982, the Estate Officer of the International Airport Authority of India issued a notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, alleging unauthorized occupation and requiring Safari Airways to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the notice issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was valid and conformed to the prescribed form. The Estate Officer, as the General Manager of the Airport, had access to files and information indicating unauthorized occupation, including the expiry of the license and subletting of the premises. The Court emphasized that the opinion formed by the Estate Officer was subject to contestation and rebuttal by the occupant during the inquiry following the show cause notice.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice issued under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, was valid and complied with the prescribed form. 2. Whether the Estate Officer was required to disclose the material on which he formed the opinion of unauthorized occupation to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 4(1) of the Act and the prescribed form for the notice. It held that the notice issued by the Estate Officer conformed to the statutory requirements and provided sufficient information to the petitioner. 2. The Court rejected the argument that the Estate Officer must disclose the material on which he formed his opinion. It reasoned that the petitioner had an opportunity to contest the opinion during the inquiry following the show cause notice. The Court emphasized the principles of natural justice and the quasi-judicial nature of the Estate Officer's role.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Safari Airways, challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Court held that the notice was valid, and the petitioner had an opportunity to contest the opinion of unauthorized occupation during the inquiry.
( 1 ) THE only question in this writ petition about the validity of the notice dated 19. 3. 1982 issued by the Estate Officer is Delhi Airport Palam, respondent No. 1 to the petitioner, M/s Safari Airway.
( 2 ) THESE are the facts. On 22. 10. 71 the President of India execute a licence in favour of the petitioner, M/s Safari Airways) for a period of one year. Safari Airways Were allowed to occupy a plot of land at Delhi Airport measuring approximately 82 sq. yards on a certain annual fee. This licence expired on 31. 10. 72 No written licence was executed thereafter.
( 3 ) ON 19. 3. 82 the Estate Officer of the International Airport Authority of India at Delhi Airport, Palam issued to Safari Airways a notice under sec. 4 (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (the Act ). This notice reads as under : 280 NOTICE OFFICE OF THE ESTATE OFFICER DELHI AIRPORT: PALAM, NEW DELHI-110010. No : AAD/eo-4 (81)/5208-11 19th March 1982 To M/s Safari Airways, (A Division of J. K. Chemicals Ltd.), J. K. Building, N. Morarjee Marg, Ballard Estate, Bombay-4000038 Whereas I, the undersigned, am of the opinion, on the grounds specified below, that you are in unauthorised occupation. of the Public Premises mentioned in the Schedule below that you should be evicted from the said premises : Grounds i) that your occupation of the premises referred to in schedule is without any specific permission, contract and/or licence. The licence granted to you for these premises has expired on 21. 10. 72. ii) It has been stated by you that M/s Air Works (India) are in possession of the premises with your consent, thus you have sublet;
"assigned and have parted with the possession of the premises. iii) The premises are required by the International Airports Authority of India for development of the airport. x Now therefore, in pursuance of sub-section I of sectio of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, I hereby call upon you to show cause on or before the 15th April, 1982 why such an order of eviction should not be made. SCHEDULE Blast pen space measuring 82 sq. yards in Green Field Area at Delhi Airport, New Delhi. "
( 4 ) IT is the validity of this notice that Safari Airways challenge in this writ petition. The ground of challenge is that this notice does not disclose the material on which the Estate Officer formed the opinion that Safari Airways are in unauthorised occupation of the pre rises. In support of his contention Mr. Bhandare, counsel for the petitioner, referred me to Barium Chemicals v Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 295.
( 5 ) THE notice in question was issued under sec. 4 (1) of the Act. Section 4 says: "issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction- 281 1. If the Estate Officer is of opinion that any perons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the Estate Officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. 2. The notice shall- (a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made : and (b ). require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof. 3. The Estate Officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. 4. Where the Estate Officer knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), he shall
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
